Star Ship Polaris

About the weapons/shields issue - there is another option (actually a couple) used in today's miltaries (or in the late design, early implementation phases) that might be useful as a guide.

For example, the Israeli military developed a 2 part counter to antitank weapons (RPGs, etc.). The first is an electronic scrambler that tries to confuse the weapons guidance system. If that fails, the weapon then fires a small explosive projectile at the incoming weapon. The point is not get a skin to skin contact but to have the defensive warhead detonate close to the incoming weapon to either destroy the weapon or cause it to fall short of its target.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the encouraging comments.

The solution you describe is the one I like most conceptually, and IIRC it's something like what David Weber does in the "Honor Harrington" books. In the case of his ships (someone who's a Weber fan correct me here, if necessary) the guidance scrambling part is moot because both weapons and ships are traveling at such velocities that beyond a certain point it would require too much energy for either to veer from their trajectories; their paths will intersect. OTOH, his ships employ close-in lasers and interceptor missiles to try to destroy incoming missiles.

You know, back to the subject of gravity control for a moment - one of the fun things about space opera seems to me to be the great variety of the high tech stuff in those worlds. If one follows "Star Trek" style gravity control to its solution, not only ought it to be the basis of every weapon and every defensive system - not only is there no justification for worrying about whether the Enterprise can be built or land on a planet's surface - but in principle you ought to be able to build starships out of cardboard boxes and have them be practically indestructable. No fun.

If one follows "Star Trek" style gravity control to its solution, not only ought it to be the basis of every weapon and every defensive system - not only is there no justification for worrying about whether the Enterprise can be built or land on a planet's surface - but in principle you ought to be able to build starships out of cardboard boxes and have them be practically indestructable. No fun.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But you could conceivably come up with gravity control situations that aren't so easy to expand to different applications. For example, what if the gravity control wasn't just plating in the floor, but also required a panel in the ceiling, so that in between those two is your gravity field? I'm sure someone could figure out something else to do with that, but it's an idea to start with. (Well, not necessarily for this project, but for someone else perhaps.)

Think of particle beam weapons, and coil-like guns, accelerating their respective large and small ammunitions through negative energy coils that impart an antigravity "push". You end up with beam weapons, and slug throwers. A whole class of weapons called "CANE" guns that individually go by different colloquial and acronymic names. That's the weaponry.

As for defense, given the propulsive ability to create a stable antigravity field around a ship in order to prevent severely warped space from collapsing, I'd see no obvious impediment to using the same field to create something akin to "shields". The problem is, such shields would probably be all but impenetrable. So, we'd definitely need to figure out ways to make its use strongly inadvisable during battle. I think it might end up having something to do with stealth being destroyed when you employ such tech, or there being "smart" projectiles that can find gaps in an antigravity field fore and aft, making shield deployment have a big downside. You might be able to use it in a story to pull someone's feet out of the fire, but there would be serious consequences after the immediate problem of avoiding destruction is averted. You might have avoided the enemy's dumb-but-fast shots, but now are wide open to his followup smart shots that can see you very clearly and get around your shields.

In the end though, a problem persists. The incoming shots can be seen. If the shots aren't using their own form of warping or stealth, the ship can just crank the drive and take off before they arrive. So conceptual refinements are needed -- in the time it takes to crank the drive, implications of your location (interstellar space or in close proximity to a gravity well), propulsive and maneuvering capabilities of smart and dumb ammunition, detection abilities, stabilization of an antigravity field normally used for propulsion and being employed for defense -- all these are things that would combine to form the complex picture of how and why you'd do things the way you'd do them.

And yet... in the end, just as happens in effective dramas about sea battles, the phraseology would be simplified, or form background chatter, and inform the action, but the important dialog that moves the plot forward would focus much less on how something happens, and more on the fact that it happens and the effect it happening has on the characters.

The solution you describe is the one I like most conceptually, and IIRC it's something like what David Weber does in the "Honor Harrington" books. In the case of his ships (someone who's a Weber fan correct me here, if necessary) the guidance scrambling part is moot because both weapons and ships are traveling at such velocities that beyond a certain point it would require too much energy for either to veer from their trajectories; their paths will intersect. OTOH, his ships employ close-in lasers and interceptor missiles to try to destroy incoming missiles.

Click to expand...

I have read almost all of the Honor Harrington books. They use something similar to what I describe above, but the first level of defense is Electronic Counter Warfare (ECW), then the anti missile missiles, then the close in anti missile lasers (not to mention sidewalls, etc.). The ECW is similar to what is used today in modern navies (and the air forces) in that it is passive and causes the incoming missile to think that a target is in one palce when it is someplace else, or that there are 2 dreadnaughts, when there is but a single cruiser.

The Israeli system I referenced above is an active system in that the weapons pod (for lack of a better term) focuses on the incoming missile and scrambles its electronics as opposed to making the incoming missile think there is more than one tank and that the real tank is a "ghost" and the missile should, therefore, attack what is in fact the "ghost" tank. Am I clear on that explanation? Not sure if I cleared that up for you or not.

Think of particle beam weapons, and coil-like guns, accelerating their respective large and small ammunitions through negative energy coils that impart an antigravity "push". You end up with beam weapons, and slug throwers. A whole class of weapons called "CANE" guns that individually go by different colloquial and acronymic names. That's the weaponry.

As for defense, given the propulsive ability to create a stable antigravity field around a ship in order to prevent severely warped space from collapsing, I'd see no obvious impediment to using the same field to create something akin to "shields". The problem is, such shields would probably be all but impenetrable. So, we'd definitely need to figure out ways to make its use strongly inadvisable during battle. I think it might end up having something to do with stealth being destroyed when you employ such tech, or there being "smart" projectiles that can find gaps in an antigravity field fore and aft, making shield deployment have a big downside. You might be able to use it in a story to pull someone's feet out of the fire, but there would be serious consequences after the immediate problem of avoiding destruction is averted. You might have avoided the enemy's dumb-but-fast shots, but now are wide open to his followup smart shots that can see you very clearly and get around your shields.

In the end though, a problem persists. The incoming shots can be seen. If the shots aren't using their own form of warping or stealth, the ship can just crank the drive and take off before they arrive. So conceptual refinements are needed -- in the time it takes to crank the drive, implications of your location (interstellar space or in close proximity to a gravity well), propulsive and maneuvering capabilities of smart and dumb ammunition, detection abilities, stabilization of an antigravity field normally used for propulsion and being employed for defense -- all these are things that would combine to form the complex picture of how and why you'd do things the way you'd do them.

And yet... in the end, just as happens in effective dramas about sea battles, the phraseology would be simplified, or form background chatter, and inform the action, but the important dialog that moves the plot forward would focus much less on how something happens, and more on the fact that it happens and the effect it happening has on the characters.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about using gravity for shields themselves, just using it to hold something in place that could interfere with incoming energy beams. Using gravity for the shields themselves would open up a LARGE can of worms...

Generating a gravity field strong enough to stop or deflect objects moving at relativistic speeds would require lots of energy. Buttloads of energy. Like maybe a small star's worth...

A gravitic field like that would also require that your outgoing fire be virtually immune to the effects of gravity if you wanted it to travel straight (or at all)...

Not to mention the time dilation problems your gravity shield might cause...

"What? We were only fighting for thirty seconds! What do you mean it's next year...?"

If you can create a space warp, you can create much, much more gravity than a star. Of course, we are talking apples and oranges, because the question isn't really about how much, as about how much in what amount of space. In any event, I'm not saying a gravity field would be used -- that would be attractive. I'm saying a negative energy and/or exotic matter-generated antigravity field. A repulsive field. Remember, the purpose of such a field is to keep open the fabric of space that has been warped by intense gravity -- a microsingularity or some other source -- at the ship's bow. Absent an antigravity field amidships, the fabric of space would collapse and create (I think) a black hole. The ship would be destroyed. The antigravity keeps the "throat" open, and creates something akin to (again, I think) a wormhole. The ship then has another hypergravity source at the stern to close the breach and restore the fabric of space to its natural geometry.

aridas is very familiar with most of Jefferies' design work before and after Trek as well as all kinds of conceptual spacecraft of the 1950s and 60s, futurist illustration ranging from the early 20th century on to Mead and beyond and god only knows what all else - he can give you the design and the science to go with it, as most of y'all know and can see in this instance.

Then I get to hang decorations on the Christmas tree - usually way too much tinsel and, well, my dad used to fuss at me for impatiently throwing handfuls of the stuff on the tree rather than carefully placing it. I'd have to take it off and do over.

Coming along nicely, but the softness of the ring just feels out of place with the rest of the design. Particularly in the back view where it makes a sort of heart-shape. I've had a few ideas I've been working on but the computer I model on has been down the last few days and needs a format, as soon as I get it back up I'll take some renders of my progress.

Wow. very nice. Awhile back some of us at work were discussing old movies that haven't been remade, and "The Forbidden Planet" came up. Something like this would be absolutely perfect. Great work Aridas.

There were plans to remake "Forbidden Planet" some years ago, and Syd Mead did some production design for it. It looked pretty cool.

You pretty much have to accept remakes for what they are, though - the film probably would have upset a lot of fans of the original, but it was being planned for a different audience in a different era.

Some of the casting discussed was - seriously - Anthony Hopkins as Morbius and Sharon Stone as Alta. Along with the filmmakers' remarks that it would be "less psychologically naive" than the original, you can get some idea where it was going.